Public School for the Obama Girls, Please?
| Fri Nov. 7, 2008 8:55 AM PST
Dear President-elect Obama,
I'm writing to you as a resident of the District of Columbia, where you'll soon be moving with your two lovely children. I would like to respectfully request that you seriously consider sending your kids to DC public schools—and not a charter school, either, but a full-on traditional neighborhood public school. I realize that you've already taken some flack for ensconcing your daughters in a private institution in Chicago. I don't intend to pile on. I understand that choosing a school is fraught with anxiety and it's the most private of decisions. But you are a public figure, so I think it's fair to ask that you give the public schools a boost of confidence by electing to send your kids to one.
Full disclosure: I send one of my children to public school, and the White House is within the same school boundary as my own home. After 5th grade, my kids would attend the same school as yours. So I have a vested interest in where your kids end up, as any school that lands the president's kids is likely to see a host of improvements. But my self-interest aside, whatever happens with your administration, you could at least leave a lasting impact on hundreds of poor, mostly minority kids languishing in schools that routinely fail to teach them to read simply by sending your kids to public schools.
Bill Clinton greatly disappointed city residents when he and Hillary Clinton opted to send Chelsea to the tony Sidwell Friends School. His argument at the time was that he and Hillary wanted to protect their daughter's privacy, an argument some found disingenuous, given that private schools are crawling with the children of the media elite who rarely, if ever, set foot in DC's crappy public facilities. City residents were immensely disappointed that the leader of the free world did not seize the opportunity to help improve one of the nation's worst school systems, without having to spend a dime.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
One of the major problems with the city's schools is that they've been all but abandoned by middle-class parents who can use their political clout to hold schools to higher standards and to demand sufficient resources for them. Right now, DC schools are at a critical turning point. Some middle class families, particularly with very young kids, are starting to come back into the system, which holds great promise for the future of education in the city. But keeping those families—and convincing more to do so—is a major challenge. The arrival of the Obama girls in a DC public school would send a powerful message to other nervous yuppie parents: your kids will be ok here—come join us! Those parents can be a major force for good that, unlike tax cuts, does have a trickle down effect on lots of kids whose parents don't know how to write grant proposals or lobby Congress. And imagine the turnout for PTA meetings should Michelle join!
While the prospect of throwing your kids into the maw of public school is something that can definitely keep you up at night (believe me, I've been there), you should take heart in the fact that you wouldn't be the first president to do it. Jimmy Carter sent Amy to Stevens Elementary School downtown, and she seemed to emerge unscathed. Stevens was closed this summer and consolidated with Francis Junior High to create the Francis-Stevens Educational Campus, the pre-K through 8th grade facility near Dupont Circle where, technically, your kids would go. There are no school performance test scores available yet for the reconstituted school, but the building was recently rehabbed and now sports a lovely new playground. True, it's a far cry from Sidwell, but it's closer to the White House and, like Sidwell, it has a tennis court. Compared with Sidwell's $28,000 annual tuition (plus $5,000 for aftercare), it's a real bargain, too.
Still, I'd be a hypocrite if I said you should send your kids to Francis when I myself have serious reservations about eventually sending my own kids there. Its junior high predecessor was pretty dreadful; many of its 9th graders looked old enough to vote. So I can see where you might balk at the idea. But Francis isn't your only option. DC actually has a number of very good schools. Thompson Elementary, also not far from the White House, is an up-and-coming school housed in a brand new building and features a Chinese immersion program. The city might even cut you some slack and give you a coveted spot at Oyster Elementary, the award-winning Spanish bilingual school in Woodley Park where schools chancellor Michelle Rhee sends her kids. (Si se puede!)
Rhee, in fact, has said she hopes to persuade you to send your kids to DC public schools. (Please don't respond by making her Secretary of Education, as some rumors have suggested you might do; DC needs her, and she's just getting started.) Her motivation is plainly obvious. She needs the PR. DC schools have such a bad rep that our own mayor, who has made education reform his signature issue, refuses to send his kids to one, so luring in the Obama girls would be an enormous coup.
I'm not asking you to sacrifice your children's education and well being for a good cause. I firmly believe that your kids can receive a perfectly good education in public school here. It takes some work, but it can be done. Besides, private school no more guarantees future success than public school guarantees failure (case in point: Al Gore III, a graduate of the prestigious St. Alban's). Regardless of which public school you pick, your family's mere presence in the building would force the school bureaucracy to rise to the occasion. And think about this: For four—or maybe eight—years, your kids will live inside the White House bubble. What better way to give them a daily reality check than to send them to school with regular folks?
Here's hoping we see you at math night.
UPDATE: At Barack Obama's first press conference as president-elect, Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet asked whether Obama would be sending his children to private or public schools in Washington. He replied that no decision has yet been made and that he and Michelle would be "scouting out schools."
Comments
I generally agree with MJ, but on this one I have to part company. He's the President of the United States, not a mayor. It would be a daily logistical nightmare not only for the children of Obama, but for the children that he would attend school with. Their safety and security are more important that him making a political point.
Submitted by Clara Jeffery (not verified) on Fri Nov. 7, 2008 10:12 AM PST.
Sidwell has tennis courts. :)
This letter is very condescending to President-Elect Obama and his family. Suggesting that he compromise his children's education in order to send out a PC message is insulting. Do you really think that a president would want his children attending public school in one of the roughest areas of the country? I would not send my children to a public school in DC or anywhere else for that matter, and I am low income. The public school system is one of the biggest failures this country has ever known. It needs to be reformed and totally rebuilt from the ground up. Hey, if the Obama's want to be like everybody else, maybe Michelle should stop wearing such nice clothes and start shopping for her outfits at K-Mart. And why bother staying at the White House? Why they could just live in a housing project so they wouldn't seem "out of touch". There are certain priviliges accorded to a president and his family. By the way, Amy Carter flunked out of Brown.
Whoah, Beth. A great deal of good comes out of the nations public school systems. To boot, many of America's most talented, and certainly hardworking, emerge from neighborhood school systems. That students within D.C.'s school systems suffer, like many inner city school systems, from the consequences of poverty and lack of opportunity does not mean that a great number of individual students do not thrive there.
The new president's leadership and experience organizing underprivileged (and black) urban communities, let us hope, will put him in a better position than most to attend to the challenges faced by D.C.'s school system--and the community as a whole. In fact, not to attend to those needs, considering the depth of his experience, will be understood for what it is: shameful.
I agree with what some of Beth is saying. I don't think chosing to send your kids to a suffering public school to prove a point or make a social statement should be expected of anyone.
Changing a failing school(s) will require much more than a prominent citizen sending his/her kids there.
When the thought of picking a school for my toddler (when he gets older) comes to mind, I get very depressed. But no way in hell will I send him to a school that needs rebuilding from the ground up just to make a point or make me feel good. His education and future are worth far more than that.
And while Obama is certainly capable have helping DC turns its schools around, I think that job belongs to the major. Obama has so many things to try to fix with the country its not even funny.
That's insane. President-elect Obama can't send his girls to public school. It would be a nightmare security wise for all concerned. He's got bigger fish to fry right now than trying to place his children in a public school setting for political correctness reasons or points. He needs to concentrate on getting things done, not spend time tutoring his kids. Public education needs to be fixed, for sure. Otherwise the U.S. is toast. But placing those two girls in public school is not going to fix anything either for the school district or for the girls for that matter, who are relocating from their own school system and home, on top of it all.
Neither president-elect Obama, nor any parent who cares about their children, should send them to DC public schools. Children are not the property of the NEA, and they are not pawns to be used to make a political gesture.
The author of this screed should be ashamed of itself.
Interesting how the "concerned citizens" of this journal screech in horror at the mere thought of extending the franchise to the least among us. Fitting, really. Take a good look at yourselves...Oh, triumphants! The horror! The horror!
Crawl back to white-picket-fenceland, the lot of you.
Hey, I think Beth's letter is a good faith attempt to draw attention to something very shameful: our education system in D.C. sucks.
But I too would be afraid for the girls' safety which in turn may compromise the safety of the other children. How do the private schools manage the security issue though? I don't know.
What if Michelle adopted the D.C. school system? I know she's interested mainly in helping women with the work/life balance issue and in supporting military families.
But it never ceases to amaze me that in our wealthy, resourceful, creative country, the school system in our capitol is such a failure. The capitol is where we should have demonstration schools and school systems - it's where we should develop models of success. It's an opportunity to show-case the best.
I believe there is a real connection between the economic crisis and education. What are we educating people for? My mom and dad grew up in the Depression and told me about their classes. No matter how rich or poor, in the public schools, everyone was expected to know not only a broad range of basics, but a depth of knowledge about the world and America that would put most students to shame today.
That was public education in success mode.
Perhaps Michelle can work to empower educators in DC to succeed. And then, perhaps put her children in their hands.
The superintendent of DC public schools is a dynamic reformer, and she would be pleased to have the Obama kids in their schools, like other kids. Also, Obama has promised to expand the Harlem Children' Zone model to 20 other cities, and surely DC will be on this list. Finally, one good school with troubled children has been turned around with transcendental meditation, and there are David Lynch scholarships to help that happen in more schools. Yes,I, too, hope the girls will go to public schools. I worked as a school psychologist in a failing Harlem school for 26 years, and I hope that Obama will bring an emphasis upon urban education for all children, not just those with connections.
Bill Clinton explored the option of sending Chelsea to public school and realized what a nightmare it would be. Not just for the girls but for the school itself disrupted by the press and the presence of the secret service.
Obama is going to have enough to worry about without having to add the security and education of his children.
It will be better not only for them but for the other children that have to share a classroom with them to do so in a place that is more easily secured and where the children are used to being protected.
GET SERIOUS,THESE ARE THE PRESIDENTS KIDS. JUST PROTECTING THEM WOULD COST A FORTUNE. HIS KIDS SAFETY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SOME POLITICAL STATEMENT. HE HAS PROMISED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT ARE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY. HE SHOULD NOT BE ASKED TO PUT HIS KIDS SAFETY AT RISK. THEY DIDN'T RUN FOR OFFICE.
I have to agree with the author- Obama's children should definitely attend public school. Given the resources and security afforded to the President's children no matter where they attend school, the Obama children will be more than safe. It's not about being PC at all. I think it is shameful that the leader of our country wouldn't put his children into our country's schools. If it's not good enough for his kids, then he should do something about it.
I'm from a family of educators and my daughter taught in the Teach for America program in D.C. Sending the first family's daughters to public school would be extremely disruptive for all in the school. Security would affect all aspects of school life. The President should send his kids to the best school available which also provides the least amount of disruption to teaching staff and other students. Worrying about public schools is a distraction he doesn't need. Leave that to the mayor and Supt. Rhee.
This is an easy one to understand --- the security concerns would clearly rule that option out. That public vs. private alternative was carefully considered in 1992 for Chelsea Clinton. And she ended up at the Sidwell Friends School.
Please - private school.
I am a public school teacher. I love public schools.
I cannot imagine the disruption that would be caused by the President's kids going to public school in my classroom. I would also be very concerned for their safety. I also object to the condescending tone of this article. Get a clue.
The Obama children have been in private/charter schools for their entire school life. Knowing how involved both parents are in these kids' education, my guess is that the school they currently attend is probably light years ahead of any public school in DC - no offense intended. That would put the kids in the awkward position of being about 2-3 grade-levels ahead of their peers - leading to rebellion and boredom for them, and a loss of educational opportunity.
WHEN the public schools have been reformed (and Supt. Rhee has just begun that process) and can compete on an even playing field, then the President will have the true option of making that choice. Until then, absolutely not. His children are too precious.
And that being said - ALL children are too precious to have to attend the deplorable schools. Congress (who is really in charge of DC) should provide every bit of support and funding needed by Supt Rhee to do the reform and overhaul that has been so badly needed for decades - and for the benefit of every single child who lives there.
I agree with Robert Evans above - the DC school system should be a model of how to do things right - not a disaster that everyone wants to run from. The Obama Administration has made a commitment to overhauling the entire public school system. Let's all work to pressure our congresscritters to help out in that effort.
I grew up in the DC metro area and attended public and private schools. In this situation, the Obama daughters need to go to private school, preferably Sidwell Friends where Chelsea went, or the National Cathedral School. These institutions are prepared for children of VIPs. They are infinitely easier to secure. The rules for students are much more stringent and enforced. This adds to the security for the girls. Asking the president to sent his daughters to a DC public school is naive and would not accomplish the author's intent.
Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee this morning, but... Have you inferred that a Nobel Laureate, environmental crusading, former Vice-President of the United States of America is a failure??
Having once lived in Trinidad, in the northeast section of the Disctrict of Columbia, I wholeheartedly agree that DC public schools need a not-so-minor miracle. However, I think your argument (not to mention your ethos) needs a bit of work.
Submitted by Qusan (not verified) on Fri Nov. 7, 2008 2:26 PM PST.
These kids currently attend the University of Chicago Lab School .. What public school could they attend in DC (or even Chicago) where they wouldn't have to get bumped up a few grades? No way they should start attending public schools now.
"Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee this morning, but... Have you inferred that a Nobel Laureate, environmental crusading, former Vice-President of the United States of America is a failure??"
No, she was talking about his son. But her argument falls flat, because he did graduate (although he actually finished school at Friends), and she is trying to make the case that he is unsuccessful based on the fact that he had a drug problem. I would be willing to bet that she has no idea what Al Gore III is doing right now, doesn't know him personally and has no basis for judging his success or failure.
This post is misguided. The presidents children going to a particular school is not going to magically fix the systemic problems of the DC public school system. It wouldn't really benefit the quality of education in the particular school, much less urban schools across the nation. The idea that Obama should martyr his children or merely put them in the way of more harm than necessary as a symbol is preposterous. They didn't ask to be activists (yet) or in the public eye. The least their parents could do is put them in the least disruptive environment possible.
I'm a public school teacher.
President Obama's children should not attend public school. The schools need to be fixed, but having his daughters attend won't do that - the premise is ridiculous.
He needs to ensure that his children are safe, and he needs to focus on fixing our country.
Both of these goals will be more easily attained if the girls do not attend a public school in DC.
Submitted by Zeno (not verified) on Fri Nov. 7, 2008 3:21 PM PST.
Sen. & Mrs. Obama should select the best school in D.C. that is consistent with maximizing their daughters' security, whether it's a public school or a private school. We have way too many nutcases in the U.S. who think Fox is a news channel and "socialism" and "Marxism" and -- eek! -- "liberalism" are about to destroy America. Keep the Obamas and their daughters as safe as possible. (I teach in a public school, but I'm more interested in security than symbolism in this case.)
Wow, I took this blog to be written tongue-in-cheek. I laughed at lines such as "After 5th grade, my kids would attend the same school as yours". Then I read all the comments, all making good points but all assuming the blogger was unaware of these points. It's a well-written piece about how far the DC schools have to go, by someone intimately acquainted with them...not where Obama should send his daughters.
Submitted by barbara (not verified) on Fri Nov. 7, 2008 3:55 PM PST.
It just seems like those little girls would be too at risk - their safety should be a bigger consideration than any kind of political statement.
While I understand the author's desire to see the Obamas send their children to public school, I am a bit disappointed by his dismissal of Sidwell Friends. I teach at Friends Seminary in NYC, and we have our fair share of privileged parents. At the same time, a Friends education is one that is rich in the Quaker tradition and includes values like peace, simplicity, and community service. There is more to Sidwell Friends than its fancy student body.
I agree. They should be in private school. Yes they are normal typical children but they are not living a normal typical life. They need the extra protection of a private school and the public school doesn't need to be burdened with the extra security of having the president's children there.
My daughter will graduate from public school in Little Rock, Arkansas this year and my son attended public school through 6th grade. I have been very active in everything from PTA to serving on the School Board. However, many of the public schools in our area are in need of much improvement. There lies the problem. I am sure the Obama's are aware of the problems in public education, but as parents, there first responsibility is to their children. It is unreasonable to sacrifice their kids education to try to improve the appearance of public education in Washington. I have been very impressed with how the Obama's have approaced parenting their children, and I am confident that they will make the right decision, based on the needs of their girls, not on the needs of the public school system in D.C. That does not mean that they will not be committed to improving public education, just like I am, although my son attends a private school.
As a parent, I don't care whether my child goes to a public or private school. I want my child to get a quality education. I am sure that Mr. and Mrs. Obama have the same concerns for their children. Parents also want their children to be safe. Where I live the best schools are private, so my daughter goes to a private school. End of story.
Aside from the obvious logistical nightmare and security problems, the Obama's as parents have the right and the obligation to consider their daughters' education and their futures first. They should not be expected to use their kids as symbols. They should not be expected to sacrifice their kids to political correctness either.
Man, I'm torn by this one. I don't think it would even be practical for him to send his kids to public schools. As some mentioned above, just the logistics would be a total nightmare and I'm not sure the kids would be as safe as they could be and their very presence might endanger the other kids.
That said though, I am sick to death of politicians here in California who make massive cuts in public education and programs for children while their own kids attend elite private schools in Malibu or some other enclave of the rich and powerful and never have to suffer the consequences of their parents' actions. Anybody want a used governator?
I am a teacher too.
I've taught in some rough areas such as the South Bronx, NY and in Orange, NJ. as well as many other places.
I've seen amazing teachers and programs in schools with funding issues and in very tough neighborhoods yield enviable results with students served.
My own child has been in both private and public schools.
The key to a good education is the teacher, the effort that a student makes, parental involvement and yes, a safe environment helps.
An improved school administration wouldn't hurt either.
Logistically, wherever the Obama girls go, there will be heightened security, Secret Service Agents and press.
At least in theory, if the Obama girls went to D.C. public schools, the security would be ramped up, thereby improving it drastically - for all the children.
If the children belong academically in classes 2-3 years ahead, so be it.
However, there are convincing arguments that the children - any gifted child-remain in the same grade but in advanced level classes. This has benefits for the children with academic gifts as well as for the other children.
All the children learn to respect differences and learn from each other. They also learn that everyone has a gift. Think Multiple Intelligences Theory. Some are math/science oriented, some are nature oriented, some visually, some musically, some athletically, some intrapersonally, some social butterflies, some can smile and brighten everyone's day.
My child is in such classes now and has been throughout his school career.
Gifted children choose friends not by age level but by other characteristics: shared interests. Some friends may be several years older, some may be younger.
Some may be in advanced classes and some may be behind in some areas.
I teach children with special needs as well as their "normal" peers. This includes children ahead as well as behind their peers.
I can only think that everyone would benefit in this case.
Being in a private school is no guarantee of success. Nor is being in a public school a guaranteed "failure".
How many if the posters here saw the Obama video with the high school teachers and students in a South Bronx School inspired to make changes "yes, we can"/"si se puede?" and succeeding! Granted, it was not the average school. However, the students were coming from impoverished backgrounds, single parent families and violence in their lives.
Funding alone doesn't make an improved educational system nor does a fancy facility.
What happens inside is key.
Isn't it the job of leaders to lead by example?
While I agree that security issues may make it an unwise choice for the president, I have to disagree with those who have described the public school option as simply "making a political point" or similar. There is plenty of evidence that having children from middle class or wealthier backgrounds in private schools significantly helps the other kids and generally does so without any significant negative impact on the middle class children themselves. That may well require a high degree of parental involvement in both the children's education and the school of course.
Yes Obama children would be an asset to any school, but would the school be of benefit to them. Both of the girls come from parents with genius IQ's and an excellent work ethic. Michelle Obama seems like an involved parent. Like every parent I think that they will want to look at what is good for their children.
Obama is your President to be and his children and his wife are off bounds to everything including your lousy schooling system. I find it offensive for you to even suggest that he should think about sending his children to your school or any school. I think that by the time he finishes, one or two terms, Obama will have done his service and that should not involve his children.
If you are that interested in making your school system a better place then I suggest that you start elsewhere. Nobody will argue with the lousy school system. Nobody will argue how it is possible that within the boundaries of the most powerful house in the world one has the worst education in US and perhaps the world. Visit your fair city at 5 or 6 am and see the homeless sleeping at McDonald's or Starbucks which are less than a quarter of a mile away from the White House. No amount of shame can change the attitudes of the political elite so the people have to change. The culture has to change. The culture has to want to learn. When parents want to have their children learn more than they want them to watch television or play football or basketball than there might be hope. In the meantime I am sure that you have made everybody aware of a problem which most are all too cognizant of. But, do leave the future President alone on this issue. I find Mother Jones even allowing this article to be printed despicable.
You know I did not vote for Obama and I personally do not like him, but now he is going to be our President. I think that we begin to do things. I am still reading about journalists writing about his race and the rifts between the parties. I am still hearing journalists being less than journalists and more like marketing machines. We have to go back to our jobs and do that which we are best at doing and more. Do not wait for Obama to do it for us. He has already told all of you to begin doing your bit. Some want to behave like those who waited for Clinton to fail. Others want to take the approach of doing everything against him. And then there are those, such as the writer of this article, who want Obama to do something that has nothing to do with his Presidency. And to boot, if he does not then he too will be the heel, just like Clinton. Shame on all of these groups.
The proper approach is that you have a new President and your task is to be good citizens of the Republic. Part of that is not to cut off our noses to spite our faces. Part of that is to use simple logic and not try and sabotage the guy before he has even started his job.
Obama's kids are going to be the most famous kids in America, if they aren't already. If they so much as sneeze, it is going to be headline news. They are going to have to be kept under guard 27/7. Their being in a public school would put them, and other kids at risk.
Perhaps Obama should hire a tutor, and have them schooled in the White House.
It is of course easy to understand your point;however, I believe sending the children of the President to public schools is a big mistake. It would be a nightmare security risk, not only for the girls, but also for the other students at the school. In no way would there be a possibility of a "normal" school life for anyone. It is foolish to think there could be.
Ridiculous and unreasonable. The man has taken the most stressful job on Earth. He has permanently disrupted his family's life. His kids have access to a top-flight education...
...and you expect him to persuade their mother that they ought not avail themselves to this one benefit for them?
Easy for you to say.
To Myskylark,
Unfathomably, a crucial point has been missed: Barack Obama and his family are already symbols and they are not even residents of the White House yet!
If no sacrifices are to be made - don't enter public office where everything you do is under scrutiny.
To David Cooper:
Wat a loaded statement to make that you want a quality education for your children so "they attend a private school because the "best" schools in my area are private- end of story!" You've clearly implied that attending a public school results in an inferior education! That is an ignorant statement to make.
I suppose the remedy for such an attitude is to spend more time in public schools!
To Bram:
"At the same time, a Friends education is one that is rich in the Quaker tradition and includes values like peace, simplicity, and community service. There is more to Sidwell Friends than its fancy student body."
Do the Quakers have some monopoly on values of peace, simplicity and community service?
I am sure the school you teach in is just fine, but please be enlightened - many other public schools also place value on peace, simplicity and above all, community service and the idea of giving back!
To Isaac B -
Of course the school would be of benefit to the Obama children!
Obviously implied here is the supposition that benefits only flow in one direction. Ignorance is bliss.
To suppose that benefits only flow unidirectionally is to be blinded.
Think of what Princess Diana did with her sons...she exposed them to all kinds of people.
Do you suppose that the public schools are lacking parents with genius IQ's and excellent work ethics?
Students, teachers or administrators with high IQ's and strong work ethics exist everywhere.
Please make the distinction between intelligence and education.
Success is not guaranteed by one's IQ. Many successful people have lower IQ's but put forth more effort towards their goals. Many intelligent people do stupid acts.
Knowing something and doing it are very different concepts.
Listen to the voice of an academically advanced, musically and athletically gifted youngster on the benefit of attending a public school with a wide range of students from different cultures, religions, races, socio-economic statuses, both genders, speaking a huge range of languages, with other differences as well and a large student population: there's no private school that can give him what he has at public school. Yes, there are tennis courts there as well... :)
Here's just some benefits to the Obama children that are likely to occur in any school - and in a public school - developing acceptance of others' differences, an ability to recognize strengths of others, courage, resilience, ability to relate to others in a give and take way, values clarification, self-discipline, the ability to set own priorities, goals and directions.
The most crucial task to learn is that it is not enough to simply have a broad range of knowledge or a large skill base.
It is what you do with what you have that counts the most.
Imagine a vast library locked.
Inability to access the information and use it is a problem.
One of the best ways to learn something is to teach it. Tutor other kids
It is important to learn to be "good enough" and not perfect.
Perfectionistic tendencies emotionally cripple many gifted youngsters.
It's important to learn to adapt and not be inflexible.
Frequently, gifted children (and adults) are emotionally intense: have strong feelings, are caring, loyal and sensitive to others.
Emotionally intense persons can learn to accept the feelings of others or seeming lack therof.
Gifted children can learn to compete with themselves rather than with others.
Gifted children can learn to stop thinking and start acting.
Another important ingredient in learning is recognition of blessings in disguise.
Our economy is in bad shape.
The blessing is that we may be more aware of our actions and inaction.
We may drive less and use public transportation more. We may improve urban planning and mass transit. We may shop less for polyester clothing made from petroleum derivatives. We may boldly shop in thrift and consignment stores, looking top-flight and saving landfills.
Even Princess Diana re-used her gowns.
We may pass legislation to preserve what remains of our precious natural resources and avoid drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Coastal Plain as well as our shores, knowing that we already have millions of acres of leased lands for drilling that have never been used.
Industry already has more land than it can drill.
Wilderness is good for the economy.
Wilderness clears our air and filters our water.
Wilderness provides essential habitat for wildlife including endangered species.
These healthy resilient landscapes are also essential for helping ecosystems and the species that depend on them [like humans] to adapt to climate change. People throughout the country value our wilderness not only for its beauty but for the natural retreat it provides from the stress of everyday life.
I would not send my dog to a public school. You can not be serious. I am sure the "First Lady" knows what is best for her and the "Presidents" daughters. So please do not be upset when they "dont" go to school with your kids. I pray he and the first lady take the girls as far away from the public eye and public school broken system as posible. Right now there is nothing good about Public School System regardless of who you are.
